[OSM-talk] Server slowness

[Martin Spott]

SteveC wrote:
> * @ 15/01/07 11:45:42 AM nick at nickhill.co.uk wrote:
> > I echo Richard's post.
> > 
> > But I would add the rider that the current OSM set-up is by no means optimised. 
> > I estimate organising the data on disc according to geographic location, and 
> > partitioning the database can improve node look-ups by an order of magnitude. 
> > Therefore, a direct comparison should implement partitioning.
> > 
> > Notwithstanding, I fully concur with previous posts that if OSM data model were 
> > shared with with the rest of the open GIS community, many benefits would be 
> > derived.
> 
> What benefits?
> 
> Other than having mapnik connect directly to the db (which may not even
> be a good thing) which it could anyway...

For a start simply look at the "What tools work with data in a PostGIS
database?" topic at this page:

  http://www.postgis.org/documentation/

Adding to that I'd like to point at the fact - already written in
another EMail just few minutes ago - lots of customized procedures have
already been implemented for PostGIS or at least other OGC-compilant
geospatial databases. This includes handling of TIGER road data (alrady
done by interested parties) or import of shoreline data which is just a
finger exercise using the well known GDAL/OGR toolbox.

And there's a third item that should not get overlooked: Sooner or
later people will group to work on a global road network and landcover
layout that complies with the needs of OGC-compilant, GIS-related
software. The incompatible storage format at OSM will prevent OSM from
taking part in the play and potential committers will have to decide
between participating in OSM or "the other" project - which certainly
results in a waste of community resources because of duplicate effort.
Adjusting the OSM data storage to "play nicely" with the rest of the
OpenSource GIS world would certainly let both parties profit from a
collaborative effort here.

Don't get me wrong: I don't insist of building my own road network, I
explicitly wish to cooperate with OSM here. Yet I hardly can see how
this could be accomplished as long as OSM rejects to agree on common
standards of data exchange.

Cheers,
	Martin.
-- 
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
--------------------------------------------------------------------------